Appeals are not retrials. An appellate court does not simply reconsider a case from the beginning. Instead, it reviews specific issues under defined standards that determine how much deference is given to the trial court.

These standards of review often shape the outcome of an appeal as much as the underlying facts.

Different Issues Receive Different Levels of Scrutiny

Not all rulings are reviewed the same way. Legal interpretations, factual findings, and discretionary decisions are evaluated under distinct standards.

The applicable standard determines how closely the appellate court examines the trial court’s reasoning.

De Novo Review Involves Independent Judgment

When reviewing pure questions of law, appellate courts apply de novo review. This means the appellate court gives no deference to the trial court’s legal interpretation.

Under this standard, the reviewing court independently determines what the law requires.

Substantial Evidence Review Is Highly Deferential

Factual findings are typically reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. The appellate court examines whether evidence in the record reasonably supports the trial court’s conclusion.

If such evidence exists, the finding will usually be upheld, even if conflicting evidence was presented.

Abuse of Discretion Limits Appellate Intervention

Discretionary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The appellate court asks whether the decision falls outside the range of reasonable outcomes permitted by law.

This deferential approach makes reversal less common.

The Standard of Review Can Determine the Result

Two appeals involving similar facts may produce different outcomes depending on the applicable standard of review. A legal issue reviewed de novo may be reversed, while a factual issue reviewed for substantial evidence may be affirmed.

The standard shapes the framework of analysis.

Framing the Issue Affects the Standard Applied

How an issue is characterized can influence which standard of review governs. Whether a question is framed as legal, factual, or discretionary may alter the degree of appellate scrutiny.

Understanding standards of review clarifies why appellate outcomes often depend as much on procedural posture as on substantive arguments.